• The Mathematical Education
• /
• v.39 no.2
• /
• pp.151-166
• /
• 2000

The purpose of this study is to understand what two models of SOLO taxonomy and van Hiele theory suggest and find out what relation there is between the category system of the SOLO taxonomy and the thinking level of the van Hiele theory. The van Hiele theory describes in line of ranking level so that it may increase the teaching effects by putting together a class, which takes into consideration the students thoughts. The SOLO taxonomy focused on the response mode of the students rather than the thinking level or the developmental stage of them to pursuit the method that can describe the students understanding in depth quality-wise. Although the SOLO taxonomy and the van Hiele model seem to have different form and character from outside in terms of their goals, a closer examination reveals that the two stances have much in common and that the models are complementary. Although the van Hiele placed more focus on the thoughts, because the conclusion was based on the students responses, the van Hiele theory can be interpreted within the structure identified in the SOLO model. In this study, we have tried to understand how the response structure form the SOLO taxonomy and the thinking level of the van Hiele theory are related, based on the studies of Pegg and Davery1998). If you briefly look at them, there are following corresponding relation between the SOLO taxonomy and the van Hiele theory. a) The relational level(R) in iconic moe is van Hiele level 1. b) The multisturctural level(M$_2$) in the second cycle of concrete-symbolic mode is van Hiel level 2. c) The relation level(R$_2$) in the second cycle of concrete-symbolic mode is van Hiele level 3. d) The unistructural level(U$_2$) in the second cycle of formal mode is van Hiele level 4. e) The postformal mode is van Hiele levle 5. Though it would be difficult to conclude that these correspondences were perfectly done, if you look at their relation, you can see that the learning process of the students were not carried out uniformly. Therefore, by studying the students response structure, using the SOLO taxonomy, and identifying the learning cycle and understand the geometrical concept more in depth.

• Research in Mathematical Education
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.143-172
• /
• 2010

In this paper, we present an analysis of how students understand some statistical terms, mainly from inferential statistics, which are taught at the high school level. We focus our analysis on those terms that present more difficulties and are persistent in spite of having been studied until the college level. This analysis leads us to a hierarchical classification of responses at different levels of understanding using the SOLO theoretical framework.

• Research in Mathematical Education
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.49-66
• /
• 2008

In this paper we present a cognitive developmental analysis of the arithmetic mean concept. This analysis leads us to a hierarchical classification at different levels of understanding of the responses of 227 students to a questionnaire which combines open-ended and multiple-choice questions. The SOLO theoretical framework is used for this analysis and we find five levels of students' responses. These responses confirm different types of difficulties encountered by students regarding their conceptualization of the arithmetic mean. Also we have observed that there are no significant differences between secondary school and university students' responses.